I just don't see why you felt the need to defend the comparison in the first place. I don't even support Mélenchon and I can still tell he doesn't have more in common with Santorum than with any other random politician.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon wants 100% tax on top salaries
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
I just don't see why you felt the need to defend the comparison in the first place. I don't even support Mélenchon and I can still tell he doesn't have more in common with Santorum than with any other random politician.
Anyway, wealth is created collectively, and this is pretty much an undeniable fact. It makes no sense to allow poverty to exist while some are making billions. We need to stop saying, "Don't be jealous of his money; he earned it." No, the country produced a certain amount of stuff, and under our current set-up, a certain percentage of the value of that stuff was distributed to him. And maybe we'd be better off if some of that had been distributed elsewhere.
100% seems excessive, but higher marginal tax rates make a whole lot of sense for many reasons. Also, we need to move away from our current worship of wealth. There are a very, very tiny number of individuals who are so talented that they couldn't be replaced. The functions that most millionaires carry out could be replaced by someone who currently earns much less.
100% seems excessive, but higher marginal tax rates make a whole lot of sense for many reasons. Also, we need to move away from our current worship of wealth. There are a very, very tiny number of individuals who are so talented that they couldn't be replaced. The functions that most millionaires carry out could be replaced by someone who currently earns much less.
What individual on earth makes 3 million a year?
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The basic idea is pretty simple and should be as obvious as how ridiculous noble and monarchic privileges are.
Current system: wealth is power to control, wealth accumulation is unregulated, hence governments are controlled by the wealthy, rendering democracy inefficient, with the aims of redirecting the flow of wealth towards themselves by any possible means at the detriment of the society's well being. The market is not free in such a scenario as money is funneled to the rich rather than being made available in a more balanced fashion across society, which means the economy is no longer growing according to society's need but growing according to the rich's need. This is no different than Mao directing investments in one industrial sector at the detriment of others, which effectively undermine society's well being as the economy no longer grows according to what society needs but according to the desires of those in charge of wealth. Mao or the excessively rich = same thing.
A true free market would involve regulations that would seek to prevent excessive accumulation of wealth, and re-balancing said wealth across society for it to spend it as it wishes. The economy would hence grow in a balanced fashion, according to society's needs as a whole, rather than growing only in a manner that sustains the rich class or in a manner that makes them wealthier.
You cannot have a democracy and unregulated accumulation of wealth, and you cannot have a balanced economy without wealth being spread out more evenly to be spent by society as a whole.
Current system: wealth is power to control, wealth accumulation is unregulated, hence governments are controlled by the wealthy, rendering democracy inefficient, with the aims of redirecting the flow of wealth towards themselves by any possible means at the detriment of the society's well being. The market is not free in such a scenario as money is funneled to the rich rather than being made available in a more balanced fashion across society, which means the economy is no longer growing according to society's need but growing according to the rich's need. This is no different than Mao directing investments in one industrial sector at the detriment of others, which effectively undermine society's well being as the economy no longer grows according to what society needs but according to the desires of those in charge of wealth. Mao or the excessively rich = same thing.
A true free market would involve regulations that would seek to prevent excessive accumulation of wealth, and re-balancing said wealth across society for it to spend it as it wishes. The economy would hence grow in a balanced fashion, according to society's needs as a whole, rather than growing only in a manner that sustains the rich class or in a manner that makes them wealthier.
You cannot have a democracy and unregulated accumulation of wealth, and you cannot have a balanced economy without wealth being spread out more evenly to be spent by society as a whole.
Are people even arguing though that redistribution in general is bad? Isn't it more that 100% is too extreme? Yes it would obviously redistribute wealth, but not without negative side-effects -> a lower rate would achieve redistribution as well (to a lesser extent, by definition) but without less negative side effects.
I take your point that those most 'useful' to society are those most likely to be least deterred by a 100% tax, but do you not think that a great deal of people WILL be deterred, perhaps even a majority (esp. in other areas which ARE still productive though perhaps not as 'useful.')
I take your point that those most 'useful' to society are those most likely to be least deterred by a 100% tax, but do you not think that a great deal of people WILL be deterred, perhaps even a majority (esp. in other areas which ARE still productive though perhaps not as 'useful.')
I'm pretty sure that some people consider almost all tax to be 'theft', yes.
Like I say, perhaps some people who would go into executive jobs for the sole pursuit of money would be deterred. Is this a great loss? People in jobs they're not very good at but for which they get rewarded large amounts (often by themselves) is one of the major problems with market liberal policies. Maybe a ceiling on earnings would encourage people who are interested in their job and good at it to stay.
When I say people that pay is not decided based upon what people "deserve" I mean that it is not necessarily based on things under the control of individuals. It is not simply a matter of merit. That is, two nearly identical people may end up with drastically different pay despite making almost identical choices in life. Perhaps one actor crosses paths with an agent at the right time and gets picked up for a big role, while another doesn't happen to. From then onwards, the big-name star will command a vastly higher pay, even if the other actor could have done just as well had he been given the opportunity.
I think it's hard to deny that income inequality is often unfair. However, I caution that ham-fisted policies such as this one will not be effective. The question is, to what extent would a policy like this make France fairer? And how much would it cost? My answers would be, "Not much" and "A lot".
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
No. If you know someone who makes $600,000 a year, and you make $60,000, chances are you instinctively see him as a very rich person, someone who might make a million dollars one day, someone beyond your status, making the kind of money you could not make. Now imagine if salaries are capped at $300,000 a year. All of a sudden you know more people who are making the maximum amount of money possible. That is far more likely to influence the average Joe to try and make more money: being rich is no longer being Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or some other famous dude, being rich is now just a question of making as much money as your neighbor Bob. You'd see more people actively try to make more, innovate, start a small side business, provide some services, etc., because suddenly being rich seems far more accessible to the average worker. So purely from an incitative consideration, it would probably incite more people to get richer.
That being said, it would also slow salary growth, as a CEO would obviously still be the one with the highest salary in a company or at least part of the few making the biggest salaries, it would prevent employees below him to see their salaries rise quickly to his level. But this is not a problem, since regulation of wealth accumulation would lead to better living standards for all as governments would have more money to spend on mass transit, parks, public pools, health services, education, the environment, unemployment benefits, etc.
So on one hand, you have an upward interest in making more money, and on the other you have a lessened need to make more money. Making more money in such a scenario is no longer a matter of survival, but a matter of being creative and having a desire to experience new things, which is excellent for economic progress and innovation as the economy no longer responds almost exclusively to a need to sustain society but rather to help it thrive and renew itself. Since most people have different desires, the economy grows more broadly than when it grows mostly to sustain everyone's basic needs, which are in general similar.
So with regulation of wealth accumulation, you actually end up with a much more dynamic growth and increased economic stability, all the while the human condition improves as a whole.
Income inequality is more than unfair, it is damaging to society.
In this topic though?
Yea, it's certainly true that redistribution will lower cost of living in general. But I don't believe in the argument there that by shifting others down, your incentives to make money increase. Perhaps it depends on the person, but I'd see making more money as a means to improve my lifestyle, rather than beating someone in a game of money one-upmanship.
Okay, I'll explain it.
Supply and demand are important, but they are not the be-all, end-all. If we feel that the distribution of wealth under a completely free market is less than optimal, we can change that. The market is a tool we as a society can use, but we should not be constrained by it. It is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
No one could create the iPad from scratch. I mean maybe such a supergenius exists, but I doubt it. You're talking someone who knows design, knows microcircuits, knows how to code the operating system, knows how to set up the factory machinery to produce the parts, etc? No one has that much knowledge.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
It's not a game of one-upmanship. Most people buy motorcycles because others did. It attracts them. They see a friend with a motorcycle and think "hey that looks fun, I wish I had a motorcycle, maybe I'll buy one". Your neighbor buys a pool, the kids are having fun every weekend, you decide to do the same for your kids. It's not competition, it's realization.
Regulating wealth accumulation is a way of safeguarding democracy, this is imperative and undeniable. But obviously, having a realistically attainable maximum-wage for the average worker (which would be adjusted over time according to circumstances like any regulation) would definitely incite more to reach that level. People usually establish their own standards according to the standards of their peers. An attainable maximum salary would be inciting to reach like so many other things enjoyed by many in our society.
Regardless, someone has to have the vision to bring those elements together into a cohesive product. Someone has to connect all these disparate skills end to end.
We can debate CEO pay and "how much is too much" (and I am certainly not in favor of CEO's fucking up a company and taking golden parachutes) but in the end certain people deserve to make more, much more, because the decisions they make affect 1000's of people.
If you're the CEO or Ford, you are piloting a multi-billion dollar business and the decisions you make could potentially put tens of thousands of people out of work if you fuck things up and/or do not bring products to market that sell. You're going to tell me that guy deserved to only make 6X the average line worker ($300K CEO cap, avg. line workers makes around $50K, for example) who, if he fucks up putting in a screw, it's no sweat off his back.
I would argue the complete opposite of your assumption - we would see far less innovation.
empty vessel
Member
Depends on your view. Are we gaining much as a society by investing millions of dollars in drugs that extend life for an extra 3-6 months?
Teachers who do a good job? Absolutely, pay them more. Teachers who are shit, but we can't fire? Meet me half way.
empty vessel
Member
We'll gain quite a bit when a cure is found. I'd rather we had a cure for cancer than, say, iPads.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
For what reason would making more money make him more likely to take a good decision? Have you been living in a cave for the past decade? CEOs are paid to think short-term, and when things go bust they jump off the plane with a golden parachute.
Remove the golden parachute, remove the privileges, and suddenly the CEO is as much on the line as so many others in the company. He is also more likely to be receptive to his peers' opinions, and his peers are more likely to give him their opinion, as the ass-licking dynamic is thrown out the window. It's no longer about a golden-shower of a pyramid, it becomes about sailing the boat to shore, together.
It does, but an absolute cap on income is also damaging to society. I really do think that you can get much better results with a lighter touch.
I think it more depends on their earnings. At some point, a person has just about everything they want and it becomes nothing but a number. A number they might judge their self-worth around, but a number nonetheless.
I don't think my lifestyle would change much even if you doubled my income.
Really, like what?
And don't get me wrong, it's a horrible disease and, for selfish reasons (e.g. if a family member gets cancer) I'd love a cure.
You have to be trolling.
Honestly, no. More people, living longer - isn't that one of the root causes of our current problems? I obviously see the selfish benefits of not wanting anyone on my family to die prematurely, and to that end I am all for seeking a cure.
Ironically, one of the things we would have with a cure for cancer is more iPads (no Steve Jobs dying), much to EV's chagrin.
No doubt. And such a person should be justly compensated.
Ah sorry, misread your post!
*Individual interpretations of 'justly' may vary.
NullPointer
Member
Dear God
So wait, you're saying that wanting your family members not to die of cancer is selfish. But wanting and valuing iPads over a cure for aids, that's not even worth mentioning?
Arguing against the merit of cancer researchers, even cancer research in general. How did you even consider posting this ridiculousness.
empty vessel
Member
There is indeed evidence that language matters economically. Over the last three decades, English speaking countries (US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have had much more dramatic increases in income inequality than non-English speaking countries.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
One could argue that a common language makes ideas much easier to spread. Personally I also find the dynamics of Latin American countries very interesting.
empty vessel
Member
It's a curious one. I mean, I don't think it's because of something inherent in the English language or anything (although I think it would be interesting to study if different language structures can affect beliefs and communication), but either whatever English class war propaganda is floating about is highly effective or the economic elite of these countries find it easier to work together and achieve their class goals through a shared language.
My completely uneducated guess would be that the anglophone countries are culturally very similar, given that they all have their roots in English-style liberalism/capitalism (Smith, Locke, Hume, etc.). The ideals that the USA was founded on were essentially those of the English philosophers of the day.
empty vessel
Member
But all of that is ancient history and we're really looking at a recent and modern phenomena of increasing income inequality. Indeed, this was after a three decade period of decreasing income inequality where in, at least, the US, income for the bottom 20% was rising at a faster rate than income for the top 1%.
empty vessel
Member
As distinguished from the unselfish reasons for wanting an iPad? I don't think anybody other than you would request an explanation for why one would think a society with a cure for cancer is preferable to one with an iPad.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I'd obviously rather have a cure for cancer than an iPad, but a society that has the infrastructure and technical capacity to invent an iPad is probably more likely to also find a cure for cancer. The two are not separate.
I'll have a go.
The principal goal of our society should be the eradication of misery. Cancer causes immeasurable amounts of human misery.
empty vessel
Member
Sure, but what we are discussing is which "certain people deserve to make more, much more, because the decisions they make affect 1000's of people."
I suggested cancer research scientists ought to be included in that group. Kosmo intended this to justify exorbitant pay for business professionals, as if they provide society's most critical work. The point being, there isn't really any connection at all between socially valuable and important work and pay for that work.
No, forget the iPad. When cancer is cured we will gain 'quite a bit' of what...?
It depends on whose definition of "socially valuable" you are using. iPads make getting on the internet and connecting with kids and grandkids in other States pretty easy for grandparents - I would say that adds social value (happiness) and Apple is justly compensated for that added value by the profit they generate. But forget the iPad, that wasn't my question.
Cannot believe this is a serious question.
empty vessel
Member
I didn't say iPads have no social value. Technology of all kinds does. Again, I am pointing out the lack of connection between socially useful and valuable work--even socially critical work like curing cancer--and pay. Your normative assertion that some people deserve more money because what they do affects many people may well be acceptable to many people (even if not to me). But if it is acceptable, it isn't actually operative in our society.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Okay people when you see the following posters do not respond to them:
Kosmo
Something Wicked
Manos: The Hans of Fate
All of these people are trolls. They aren't trying to hold conversation but to just simple troll the fuck out of you.
There are plenty of real rightests on GAF who offer intelligent discussion (Gaborn, AlteredBest, etc.) but when these three appear? Do not bother replying.
That being said, has there ever been a country to implement this in the long term and be successful? It just seems to me whenever a nation implements socialist or hard leftist economics it ends up for the worst.
Kosmo
Something Wicked
Manos: The Hans of Fate
All of these people are trolls. They aren't trying to hold conversation but to just simple troll the fuck out of you.
There are plenty of real rightests on GAF who offer intelligent discussion (Gaborn, AlteredBest, etc.) but when these three appear? Do not bother replying.
That being said, has there ever been a country to implement this in the long term and be successful? It just seems to me whenever a nation implements socialist or hard leftist economics it ends up for the worst.
Angry Fork
Member
People suffer much much more by having cancer than not having an ipad. Curing cancer would relieve them of that suffering and create much more happiness than an ipad creates. That's why cancer matters more than ipads and cancer researchers should be given priority over granny convo's.
Depends what your goals are doesn't it? I don't give a shit about being wealthy I care more about friends and relationships while having the free time to read/write. Why should I live in a society catered to the rich and people who want to be rich?
It doesn't help that "socialist" countries often get their shit kicked in when it comes to trade and America still won't be open with Cuba. America or whatever capitalist nation is dominant will try to wheedle out what they see as 'competition'.
This too. Finland PAYS it's students to go to university. Imagine someone trying to pull that in America. FUCK STUDENTS GIVE THEM BOOTSTRAPS.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Id say that it's more so the fact that the policies stem from more authoritarian principles as opposed to the wants of the people. Hard left countries that have enacted more leftist policies have been ruled by dictators or otherwise more authoritarian people.
Places in Europe like Sweden have enacted more leftist policies by vote and they seem to be doing fairly well last time I checked.
- Status